M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >>* Always, always, always build MANIFEST, and always include both the >>MANIFEST file and MANIFEST.in (if present) in the source distribution. > > > -1 on always building MANIFEST. > > This would miss the point of managing MANIFEST files > independently of your package files, e.g. using > Makefiles or other tools dealing with file dependencies, > checkouts, etc.
How about always build it, automatically, if some particular option is not passed to setup()? This would only apply to packages using setuptools, not distutils, and there's other things that existing distutils packages might have to tweak to move to setuptools. Maybe it would be as simple as a keyword argument that refers to a routine to build the MANIFEST file; and if you build MANIFEST by hand, then you just make the function a no-op. Also, disable all command-line options that control when/if/how MANIFEST is generated; these seem peculiar to me. MANIFEST generation seems like package metadata, not something particular to your build, and command-line options seem like a bad way to control that. It's a little fuzzy, though, since command-line options and setup.cfg are equivalent, and setup.cfg options often feel like package data. So... I don't know what the middle ground is there. Either way, these aren't things that seem like they should be regularly tweaked. I don't know, I don't have any packages with complex (or even simple) build processes, so I only know that the current system is mysterious to me, and almost but doesn't always work without my intervention. I think Phillip also mentioned using MANIFEST for package_data? At least insofar as the packages and the MANIFEST intersect, this seems like a good idea. -- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
